Having written every week for almost four years, except for a short interlude between September and November last year, this is my final column for Nepali Times. Kunda Dixit, and the then editor of the paper, Anagha Neelakantan, had generously invited me to comment regularly on the evolving politics of the Tarai in the middle of 2007. I was all of 23 then, and to have a political column in the best English weekly in the country was indeed a privilege.
A lot has happened since then, and my own writing has shifted from an exclusive focus on the Madhes to the churning in Kathmandu, and the international factors that shape domestic political outcomes.
At the risk of sounding defensive, I would like to use this final column to respond to the two key criticisms, among many, that I have faced over these years Ė in person, letters to the editor, and comments on the web.
The first criticism is of biasĖ that I am a closet Maoist, though the Maoists themselves would never consider me, or those sharing my class, caste, or educational background or political leanings, as one of them.
The Maoists represent the most important and complex political movement of our time. To have a simplistic black and white view about them is just foolish. This column has criticised Maoist high-handedness and violence; held it solely responsible when CA polls were postponed in November 2007; cautioned the Maoists while in government not to be adventurous, be it on the China front or the army; blasted Baidya and company for their absurd positions; repeatedly highlighted Dahal's weakness as a leader in not taking the bold, irreversible steps that would allay suspicions on the other side; and exposed Maoist hypocrisy on India.
But I do believe that the entry of the Maoists into the political structure has deepened Nepali democracy. The party has mobilised social groups that otherwise had little voice. It must be credited for the agenda of the republic, CA and inclusion. The 2006 People's Movement would have been impossible without them, and democrats who pretend to have done them a great favour forget that their own movement was confined to the vicinity of Ratna Park before the participation of the rebels.
While the Maoist model of the state is unacceptable, their presence offers us a chance to debate how to go beyond merely formalistic liberal democracy, which as we saw in the 1990s is a necessary but not sufficient system to address popular aspirations in this deeply unequal society. The last anti-Maoist coalition, conceived essentially by forces outside parliament, was a deep subversion of democratic norms Ė as is clear now, isolating the Maoists was neither sustainable nor intelligent as it only strengthened the dogmatists within.
But as the Maoists get 'mainstreamed', their degeneration has been rapid. The Maoist party is replicating the political culture and corrupt practices of the other parties, and it is slowly becoming disconnected from the changing aspirations of the new generation. The onus now is on them not to let their internal contradictions hold the country hostage, and to implement their commitments under the CPA.
The second criticism, somewhat paradoxically, is that I am an Indian 'agent', even though the Indians themselves think I am overly critical of their establishment. Partially, this view stems from my Madhesi background, and the fact that I often report from Delhi.
Delhi's hardline position on the Maoists, the designs to dissolve the CA to weaken them, the embassy's abrasive approach, and its efforts to micro-manage parties has been counterproductive for Nepal, as well as Indian interests here. Their short-term tactical moves risk pushing Nepal into another prolonged conflict, albeit of a different kind.
Nepal may be structurally dependent on India, but the resentment their recent policy line has generated across the political class will manifest itself in different ways and haunt India in years to come.
While being critical of the present Indian line, however, I do believe Nepal's future lies in the continued integration of its citizens with the larger Indian economy. The open border largely benefits us, and in return, we should be firm on respecting India's security interests. As someone who studied and worked in Delhi, benefitted from it, and has family across the border like many in the Madhes, I cannot but be partial to our special relationship and would like to see it deepen.
But earning brickbats is an occupational hazard while contributing to public debates. Nepali Times has been truly democratic, never censoring a view even if it ran contrary to its editorial line. And while I have to move on for personal reasons, I will miss this paper's distinctive space, which gave me tremendous freedom and an opportunity to learn and grow. Thank you.
With C K Lal and Prashanta Jha leaving Nepali times, I am wondering whether any one of its present and potential columnist can understand and analyze the dynamics in Terai/ Madhesh. Anyway, Good Bye Prashant and we will like to thank you for providing an opportunity to expats and elites in kathmandu to understand Terai/ Madhesh
08 APRIL 2011 | 3:36 PM NST
Good luck with whatever you will be doing in the future.
As befits a swansong the article clearly succintly summarises the political consternation and dilemmas of Nepal.
The Maoists represent the most important and complex political movement of our time. To have a simplistic black and white view about them is just foolish. This column has criticised Maoist ...
Criticised the Maoists for everything except their fundamental principle- that violence is an acceptable route to political power. This is something that needed to be drummed in to all Nepalis again and again and again but you chose to ignore it or mention it only obliquely and with excuses. There is no complexity to Maoist politics. Use violence to achieve political power. Can't be more simple than that.√Į¬Ņ¬Ĺ
But I do believe that the entry of the Maoists into the political structure has deepened Nepali democracy.
If so, you are deluding yourself. The Maoists have put back the development of democracy in Nepal by at least a generation. But then you are not alone in this delusion. Virtually all the political parties hoped to further their own political agenda in the chaos caused by the Maoist violence. They preferred this to the hard slog of democratic consensus building. A quick fix solution as a substitute to hard work. That is not how democracy works and you, of all people, should have recognised this and loudly said so. As and when the new constitution is completed we will have gone back to the position of 2047 in terms of political development.
While the Maoist model of the state is unacceptable, their presence offers us a chance to debate how to go beyond merely formalistic liberal democracy, which as we saw in the 1990s is a necessary but not sufficient system to address popular aspirations in this deeply unequal society.
After all is said and done you are going to end up with a constitution that is not much different to the last one. There is nothing that will be in the new constitution that couldn't have been achieved by amending the previous constitution. The CA was offered as √Į¬Ņ¬Ĺa sop to the Maoists. To the Maoists it was a useful tool in their final goal of establishing their totalitarian system. You fell for the Maoist spiel.√Į¬Ņ¬Ĺ
But as the Maoists get 'mainstreamed', their degeneration has been rapid.
Hardly surprising. They have no politics other than to be in power- by violence if needed.
Their short-term tactical moves risk pushing Nepal into another prolonged conflict, albeit of a different kind.
Yes, but with plenty of helping hands in Nepal. And don't forget that the Maoists too enjoyed Indian "hospitality" for a long time. If it was OK for the Indians to impose the 12 point agreement (among others) how can you complain about other impositions?
The √Į¬Ņ¬Ĺhypocritical attitude to using violence as a political tool lies at the heart of the political mess that Nepal is in now. Too many people, including you, have been willing to accept the fruits of violence which means your principles are too compromised for you to oppose violence. And you have been at the forefront of championing this hypocrisy.√Į¬Ņ¬Ĺ
08 APRIL 2011 | 3:58 PM NST
Prashant, I'm heartbroken! I hope we will - and I'm sure we will -¬†see and hear you on other platforms. Your response to your critics is spot on, even though you know well how they are going to react to it. This certainly will not be your 'final' retort. I am not a Maoist either, but I think the best line in¬†this piece was: 'The 2006 People's Movement would have been impossible without them, and democrats who pretend to have done them a great favour forget that their own movement was confined to the vicinity of Ratna Park before the participation of the rebels.' Sometimes it helps to remind people of¬†concrete historic 'details'.¬†Wish you all the best. We'll miss you.
08 APRIL 2011 | 5:00 PM NST
4. who cares "This column has criticised Maoist high-handedness and violence; held it solely responsible when CA polls were postponed in November 2007; cautioned the Maoists while in government not to be adventurous, be it on the China front or the army; blasted Baidya and company for their absurd positions; repeatedly highlighted Dahal's weakness as a leader in not taking the bold, irreversible steps that would allay suspicions on the other side; and exposed Maoist hypocrisy on India."
and still supports, believes in maoist???¬†
"The party has mobilised social groups that otherwise had little voice."
many drug lords in latin america also have been doing the same. only difference is, maoist are the largest criminal org. in the entire world.¬†
tell me something, whom do all those dictators, criminals use to attack others, loot, kill....... its always poor, un/less educated.
"It must be credited for the agenda of the republic."
what republic agenda? ¬† ... they just wanted to replace shahs with dahal and family. and that is not republic..... i should repeat this- girija was never democratic- he wanted to become shree 3, just like ranas.¬†
"The 2006 People's Movement would have been impossible without them,¬†"
people came to street in hope of peace, what maoist did was kind of a blackmailing. its people who brought republic, all maoist did was forced people to choose one, and majority choose republic. and the action of gyn bahadur too helped to expose shahs- that shahs all wanted was to hang on in power, loot (too bad, unlike his ancestors, he could not get the benefit of lacking of media).
"who pretend to have done them a great favour forget that their own movement was confined to the vicinity of Ratna Park before the participation of the rebels."
i believe, only maoist and gyn bahadur can bring people on the street. NC, UML cant. how could you so soon forgot that gyn bahadur also had brought millions to his lecture giving programs, mostly in the villages.¬†
"isolating the Maoists was neither sustainable nor intelligent¬†.."
for me, it did its part, only some of the problems were weakness of the people running the govt. corruption of madeshis and koiralals etc.¬†
"But as the Maoists get 'mainstreamed', their degeneration has been rapid..."
its not true, its was cause we send them to run the govt. in the beginning and later sideling them... its step by step process.¬†
its good that, maoist will be the govt. controller on the 14th, the black 14.
"The second criticism, somewhat paradoxically, is that I am an Indian 'agent', even though the Indians themselves think I am overly critical of their establishment. Partially, this view stems from my Madhesi background, and the fact that I often report from Delhi."
was girija madeshi. non sense.¬†
one of the major problem with you was instead of focusing on nepal's interest, you were too focused on indian interest. you tried to mix india with everything.¬†
"As someone who studied and worked in Delhi,"
so this means, imported certificate does not mean being competent.¬†
"¬†Nepali Times has been truly democratic, never censoring a view even if it ran contrary to its editorial line.¬†"
may be for you.
"2007. I was all of 23 then".
you mean, you are 26 now. so you have time to learn the art of analysis. and lots of time to restart your life.¬†
see you when you become experienced, confident, good¬†analyst.¬†
08 APRIL 2011 | 5:29 PM NST
As well as now lacking columnists who can understand and analyze the dynamics in Terai/Madhesh, Nepali Times will also miss not having anyone that even tries to understand the Maoists.
Although I usually disagreed with Prashant Jha, especially in his criticisms of the Maoists, at least he seemed to be attempting to understand them and to debate in a way that had some connection with the modern world.
The negative attitude of comments towards him reflected a real hostility towards the very idea of trying to understand either Maoist or Indian positions. Only childish abuse is welcome to people with a pre-modern outlook.
It may sound like "damning with faint praise", but Prashant Jha can take some pride in having seemed a little out of place in Nepali Times simply because instead of just the veneer of Western modernity conveyed by other columns he actually did reflect modern thinking (with all its faults).
08 APRIL 2011 | 5:33 PM NST
6. Soni "The Maoists represent the most important and complex political movement of our time. To have a simplistic black and white view about them is just foolish."
To not know evil for what it is, is both cowardly and foolish. Besides being criminal when it is done from a responsible position. There is no complexity in a political movement that appeals to the basest of human faculties in mobilising people. Particularly at the pain of death.
I find it ridiculous and insulting that you are trying to tell us that you were not a closet Maoist. Your class, caste, education has nothing to do with it. Your education, class and caste are what makes a typical guilt ridden communist apologist intellectual.¬†
"This column has criticised Maoist high-handedness and violence; held it solely responsible when CA polls were postponed in November 2007; cautioned the Maoists while in government not to be adventurous, be it on the China front or the army; blasted Baidya and company for their absurd positions; repeatedly highlighted Dahal's weakness as a leader in not taking the bold, irreversible steps that would allay suspicions on the other side; and exposed Maoist hypocrisy on India."
You did no such thing. At each step you obfuscated the truth that was against them. What would you have said about their violence other than that it is abhorrent, you could not condone it. Yet instead of using clear terms to criticise blatantly criminal acts you tried to divert attention.
Your defense that you are not pro-Indian is fair enough, I am not either and, surprise surprise, nobody in Nepal is because nearly everybody has some connection with India, sometimes deep.¬†
But to not be angry at their wrong-headed interference is to be naive. Their senior bureaucrats are socialists, they have interfered in Sri Lanka and elsewhere and they did that in Nepal.¬†
I wish you well, I really do. It is sad to see you go. But here is the thing, in your parting words to your readers, you finally had the opportunity of being honest. You chose otherwise. I can only be angry with that.
08 APRIL 2011 | 8:31 PM NST
Rightly explained and a well deserved round of applause Prashant! I'll miss you in Nepali Times though I'm pretty sure you've a bright future wherever you are.¬† Just ignore nepali rightists and write what you think the best for nepali democracy, those who believe in freedom of thoughts appreciated Prashant's writing and will in future as well. keep it up!
08 APRIL 2011 | 9:00 PM NST
8. John M. Kelleher
Although I often disagreed with Mr. Jha's analysis, I did always appreciate his clearly written prose, courteous style and uniquely Madheshi perspective.¬† I will at the very least miss the editorial variety that he provided to these pages.
That said, I found his final discourse regarding the Maoists and their putative role in Nepal's nation building experiment to be rather unsatisfying.¬† I know that Mr. Jha is neither a¬†Maoist, nor anything even remotely resembling one.¬† But then, my primary arguments have never been directed against the Maoists or their most enthusiastic armchair champions.¬† Such people are frankly too deluded to even bother noticing.¬† My primary argument has always been against the oft-repeated refrain, reproduced yet again in Mr. Jha's final article, that the Maoists' flawed integration into the political process will "deepen" Nepali democracy.
The Republic and CA are indeed the offspring first and foremost of the Maoists, as Mr. Jha correctly points out.¬† No one else in Nepal's spectrum of political groupings even considered adopting these programs until the recalibration of their own platforms that these parties undertook to entice the Maobadis into the mainstream.¬† Nor, in hindsight, is it easy to see what either program has benefited Nepal.¬† The CA is an unsalvageable failure which has yet to demonstrate any capacity to produce a new organic law for Nepal.¬† The document it is tasked to replace [that of 1990] was itself fully democratic and there has yet to be any public forum or debate as to its merits and supposed demerits.¬† As for the Republic itself, please try to bear in mind that republicanism does not automatically equate to progress by default.¬† Iran, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan come to mind rather quickly.¬† The institutional failure of Nepal's own ganatantric experiment may put it in that unflattering company sooner rather than later.
Equality and inclusion are noble goals to pursue, but this need not entail the wholesale dismantling, reimagining and/or restructuring of the "merely formalistic liberal democracy" of the 1990's, particularly when no one in the Nepali political spectrum, least of all the Maoists themselves, has anything credible to offer for substitution or even recalibration.¬† The militant far left are not the forces to be relied upon for a more inclusive society, at least from the perspective of those of us who still believe that both the form¬†and spirit of liberal democracy are worth preserving intact.¬† The "peace process" enshrined in the CPA foolishly¬†handed the balance of internal force and the primary political initiative to the Maoists and their fellow travellers on the far left, restraining Nepal's legitimate armed force¬†whilst placing no real restrictions on the activities of¬†a largely unreformed¬†insurgency movement.¬† This asymmetry of force does not give the Maoists any real incentive to reform themselves, but only to continually escalate their importunities against the state.¬† Mr. Jha is correct to label the political model offered by the Maoists as "unacceptable"; I would carry the point further by arguing that their methods of exploiting (not ameliorating) longstanding inequalities for the sake of their¬†revolutionary program¬†encapsulates an attitute which simply cannot be accomodated in a parliamentary system, has nothing at all to offer a liberal democracy, and can only make the day of a genuinely equitable and inclusive Nepal even further off.
New Delhi's "hardline position" against the Maoists is an inevitable and necessary adjustment of Indian policy in the wake of the manifest failure of the conciliatory policy India adopted towards the Maoists in 2005 under pressure from the ciminally idiotic Sitaram Yechuri and his Left Front cohorts.¬† That policy has created an unbiddable monster in the form of a Maoist-dominated Nepal and a worsening Maoist revolt within India's own borders.¬† India has belatedly realized that its own intrinsic interests have been imperilled by a disastrous policy which, far from delivering a pliant Bhutanesque lapdog in post-monarchy Nepal, has instead multiplied the South Block's headaches.¬† And from a purely domestic viewpoint, the risk of emboldening Maoist hardliners through marginalization is easily outweighed by the risk of actually allowing these spree-killing brigands free access to the reins of state.¬†
I hope that Mr. Jha will take this as nothing more than a constructive counterargument from someone who would never have the temerity to call him either a Maoist sympathizer or an Indian agent.¬† Your perspective will be missed, and I for one will be interested to see how your own analytical lens may evolve as Nepal's politics continue their Byzantine contortions in the years to come.
08 APRIL 2011 | 1:23 AM NST
Firtsly I would like to wish you Prashantji all the best for your future endeavours whatever they may be.¬† It was interesting to see your articles and the view points that you brought forward as an individual of one of the many diverse ethnic, linguistic, religious and caste groups of whom reside in the Terai belt.
I did find it strange that your artciles were trying to be sold to us as the true voice of the Madhesi people, considering as you know how diverse the people of the Terai are. But still, your views were interesting but to be fair were not always consistent and had a very strong anti pahadi and pro one madesh sentiment behind it. However, I do feel you do have the potential with maturity to understand the issues and sentiments of all Nepalis and become a better journalist.
Also I would like to commend #8. John M. Kelleher
What a fine reply and understanding you have shown about Nepal. I think the person who calls himself Arthur should read and learn something from you.
08 APRIL 2011 | 4:16 AM NST
You said a lot of, and did what a¬†swan-song¬†would not encapsulate. May you write nice books. May I read your nice book¬†appareled¬†with virtues.
Your views about Maoists is really naive, as naive as it is for a man already 27(23 plus 4), yet it brings forth halos: that the notion of underestimating the bloody minded former insurgents is catastrophic, that as a close¬†neighbor, India ought to reciprocate towards¬†Nepal¬†and¬†Nepal¬†do the same in many realms (as many realms as is¬†buzzed¬†the world, from cricket to capitalism), that the historical context of April Appeal is neither that parties alone brought Maoists in¬†mainstream¬†politics from the hindsight nor Maoists alone¬†divulged¬†first the chart of progressivism (in a georeligiopoliticoeconomic broad trend bestirring in¬†Nepal), that Plain People are rather antagonistic towards India in some core¬†arithmetic, that the¬†arthritic¬†political conundrum as yet misconceived as inveterate contortion can be mystified once the three basic fronts namely the Indian influence, Maoists appeal and Economic Chart are given the basic push (without undermining other political and civil parties, groups and organization) and lastly that not editorial but personal reason eluded you to get away( which I couldn't help doubting!)
**I liked Comment 8 much than Article itself.
09 APRIL 2011 | 10:01 AM NST
The 2006 People's Movement would have been impossible without them, and democrats who pretend to have done them a great favour forget that their own movement was confined to the vicinity of Ratna Park before the participation of the rebels.
This statement is a good example of your immature attitude towards democracy and the democratic process. And also a serious deficit of logical thinking. The 2006 People's movement would not have been necessary but for Maoist violence. The whole Maoist farce is √Į¬Ņ¬Ĺand was a distraction in the the political development of Nepal. This is like arguing that breaking your leg was good for you because you then got to spend a month in hospital resting.
It also shows your lack of understanding of the democratic process and democratic principles. The ability to gather together a crowd by itself is not an indication of popular support- those who have lived through the Panchayat system will recognise this. It takes time and persuasion to convince people. It is this impatience that has made people like you mistake Maoist slogans and agitation for true political change.
The mistake the non maoist parties made was is not sticking to their principle of non violence. Abandonment of violence should have been a precondition for negotiations with the Maoists. This would have delayed their victory but ultimately they would have won- against both the palace and√Į¬Ņ¬Ĺ the Maoists- simultaneously. √Į¬Ņ¬ĹSure, in the short term they may have been unpopular but this is hard slog that is required for democracy and our leaders failed us. Instead they chose the apparently more easy and populist route which has landed us in the mess that we are in now.
Sacrificing short term apparent political gain at the expense of abandoning a fundamental principle is always a mistake and Girija and the Congress fell for it.
As a member of the intellectual elite you should have seen this but either didn't or chose not to. Which is all the more disappointing because you are one of the more clear headed one of the lot.
09 APRIL 2011 | 11:44 AM NST
12. Sujan Mr. Dixit is just cleaning up--to boost our Nepali Nationalism. CK Lal and Prashant is better gone. Now we can celebrate our pure patriotism with pure Nepalis. Cheers All.
09 APRIL 2011 | 2:45 PM NST
13. Paul Krugman
Kudos to Jange ji and John ji, you both summed up the matter quite nicely.
Prashant ji, you must take a clear-headed look at the Maoists and what they represent and where they are now and then make your analysis. They are lowest of the low. Violence behind everything. Double-talk and triple-talk. Tactics and subterfuge and conspiracies and double-dealing and lying and spending my taxpayer dollars on bolstering their army (watch Shaktikhor video). They are not positive. They have set Nepal back many years. They are for goondhatantra, not ganatantra. Get real.
09 APRIL 2011 | 9:58 PM NST
Good Luck Prashant! didnot always agree with your analysis on India and thought you focussed too much on India's influence on Nepal. Which further made general audiance believe India is the main reason for Nepal's problem.¬†
However, always enjoyed reading your article and certainly you will be missed! Plain speaking- I always looked forward to reading!¬†
09 APRIL 2011 | 11:16 PM NST
15. Rajendra Giri
Prashant, I wish you all the best for your future¬†endeavors and congratulation on your achievement so far in the¬†journalism.¬† It's interesting to see your writings and the view points that you brought forward as an individual of one of the many diverse ethnic, linguistic,¬†and¬†religious; and¬†political views.¬†
10 APRIL 2011 | 9:56 AM NST
People like you create and breed ethnic conflicts.¬† Being a pahadi myself, its disgusting to see how the¬† like you don't see the people of the terai in equal light or status.¬† My disagreement with Prashant's or CK Lal's opinion had nothing to do with their origin just¬† their view points regarding the Maoists.¬†¬†¬†¬† Your patriotism is hollow and reeks like the charphi in tundikhel. Pathetic.
10 APRIL 2011 | 12:14 PM NST
Come to think of it! Well, I never!!
Difference between those who are fresh University alumni and those who have lived a chunk of life is, the formers perhaps learn to do things right only, whereas the latters learn how to do right things.
10 APRIL 2011 | 3:45 PM NST
I thought comments were moderated.
#12 Sujan suggests CK Lal and Prashant Jha are not pure Nepalis.
So, Nepal's President and Vice Presidents are not pure Nepalis?
Shameful for the commentator to suggest this and for this paper to let this kind nonsense to appear.
You may agree or disagree with CK Lal and Prashant Jha, one cannot suggest that they are any less Nepalis than Nepals, Dahals, Khanals, and Koiralas. Thank you very much.
10 APRIL 2011 | 8:44 PM NST
I will miss your column, mostly because of the things you chose to focus on. Whether I agreed with you or not, I always felt that your pieces picked on the most¬†important angle, and went to the heart of the matter - which is a rare skill really. Good luck with whatever you do next.
10 APRIL 2011 | 10:46 PM NST
20. who cares 18. Thurpunsich,
VP is not nepali at all.¬†
his carcass is in nepal, i dont know why, but his heart, sole are in bihar.¬†
11 APRIL 2011 | 9:41 AM NST
Yeh, the VP, also known as Chareshananda Jha, shunned by Supreme Court, sent back to lower court in Biratnagar, boycotted by lawyers. I wonder, what the Madhesi parties saw in him to propose him for the VP, yeek
11 APRIL 2011 | 11:14 AM NST
22. suman dharel
Hasayo yaar Prashant le..aafule aafailai maijanne bhanthanchau yaar timi ni. Madesh issues re--katti na pahad or himal ko manche le chai k k na pako jhai..its the few politicians stupid! anyways, you guys seem to be the kingmakers and self praised know-all. people like you have helped in deepening the divide between tghe three regions of the country.
shame on you!
11 APRIL 2011 | 8:27 PM NST
Some comments really show the level of political culture that nepali media has helped to flourish till the day, in one or another way. So Prashant, today you're needed more than ever to educate this rancid rightists of nepal. They should be shown what they stand for and who they are: putrid and inefficient rightists who were pathetically unable to understand that Nepal social unjustice brought them down.
You are right, If it has not been for violent Maoists still they'd be leaving in their den happily, after all they were taught to feel proud even of their stingy shits. The vanity is in their blood¬†so don't get surprise.¬†
11 APRIL 2011 | 10:47 PM NST
All the best sir.¬† While I have not always agreed with you, I have appreciated your insights and writing style.¬†
"May the wind always be at your back and the sun upon your face" - George Jung
11 APRIL 2011 | 11:31 PM NST
25. Atul Kumar Thakur
I have been reading Prashant Jha's piece across the publications of Nepal/India and have emphatic admiration for his scholastic hold on the political affairs.It's quite natural in life or profession to run against the straight line,so it's not unusual if Prashant is leaving here his weekly column in Nepali Times after remaining incessant for last four years.In last four years,he has contributed immensely for the national causes-especially he emphatically served the national voice outside the Nepal.It's disgusting to see so much wrong convictions about him at the end of his tenure as Columnist from readers with no zest for demarcating right or wrong.The unwarranted debate of Madheshi/Pahari is absolutely lethal and I am amazed how such hateful mongering being allowed at this most prestigious platform.The voices of hatred must be stopped for the better sake of this nation and humanity..Kanak Mani Dixit and Kunda Dixit have huge admiration in India-they are not from Madhesh?then why sabotaging the liberal relation between naturally friended India and Nepal.What I saw in the comment section of this magazine for last few issues was truly disappointing for me and others who care for free and fare environment...best wishes for Prashant-Atul Kumar Thakur,New Delhi Blog/ www.onesstandpoint.blogspot.com
11 APRIL 2011 | 2:51 AM NST
Comment # 12 and 20 are spot on. Good riddance-bring on the new NT.
12 APRIL 2011 | 7:25 AM NST
You are all of 27 years old. I can see you have got your Master Degree in Political Science through Nepali Times University. Come back when you are 30 with your PHD from a school of Journalism in India or maybe Columbia University, United States now that you have a resume full of articles and recommendation letter from Kundaji.
13 APRIL 2011 | 6:27 AM NST
Will miss you Prashant...... Good luck.......